Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill - Standing Committee B

[David Taylor in the Chair]

Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill

Clause 9 - Entitlement to licence

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 29, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, after ‘possible’, insert
‘, after having served either five years, or one third, of his sentence (whichever is the less),’.—[Sammy Wilson.]

1.7 pm

David Taylor: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 131, in clause 9, page 6, line 24, at end insert—
‘(2A)A person subject to a sentence of life imprisonment is not eligible for a licence under this section until he has served at least two years of his sentence.
(2B)A person sentenced to a period of imprisonment of five years or more is not eligible for a licence under this section until he has served at least one year of his sentence.’.
No. 30, in clause 9, page 6, line 28, leave out subsection (4).
No. 132, in clause 9, page 6, line 28, at end insert
‘other than a sentence of life imprisonment or one of five years or more.’.
No. 133, in clause 9, page 6, line 31, leave out subsection (5).
No. 134, in clause 9, page 6, line 41, leave out subsection (7).
The recording equipment is now back in working order. I pass on the apologies of Hansard for any inconvenience caused to the Committee.

Sammy Wilson: At the end of this morning’s sitting I was making the point that the Bill creates a further anomaly: people who were convicted before the Belfast agreement will have served some time—perhaps a substantial part of their sentence—in prison, whereas those who have been on the run or who have come before the tribunal as a result of ongoing police investigations will serve no time. In future those who did not benefit from this scheme might claim that they were treated differently and unjustly, and that might need to be dealt with—perhaps, going by our experience of republicans and others, in the form of compensation. The amendment would remove that anomaly and ensure that those who are guilty of murder or multiple murders served at least some time in prison. That might be of little comfort to those who would like proper justice to be meted out to such people, but it would at least ensure that they pay in some way for the crimes that they committed.
I am sure that some hon. Members will point out that the sentences that we have suggested—
“five years, or one third, of his sentence”—
are tougher than they would have been under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, but they are designed to reflect the fact that many who will benefit from the scheme have compounded their offence by having sought to avoid the courts and prison.
The amendment is sensible. It would remove the anomaly created by the Bill and its contradiction and inconsistency with previous treatment of those found guilty of terrorist offences. It would also give some comfort to victims by saying that at least those guilty of the crimes will serve time in prison.

Laurence Robertson: I welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. Taylor. Our amendments Nos. 131, 132, 133 and 134 are along the same lines as amendment No. 29.
The people of Northern Ireland are insulted by the Bill and although the Minister says that he may correct the provision, people who have committed the most terrible crimes will not have to appear in front of a court. There will not be a court, but even if there were and people appeared in front of it, they would not have to serve a single day in prison for the crimes that they had committed. That is a terrible insult to the survivors and people whose relatives and loved ones have been murdered. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) says, the Bill is inconsistent with the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, under which there was a minimum requirement. It was not long considering the seriousness of some of the crimes, but it was a requirement of sorts.
The Secretary of State’s explanation on Second Reading was that the Government want to get people through the system, as if that will correct everything. It may make it legally tidy. As I said on Second Reading, if the Prime Minister is considering retiring before the next election, it puts everything neatly together for him—in a box, all done with. However, it is not all done with for the survivors and those who must live with the consequences. It is not done with for the people who suffered the pain. We should be thinking about them.
I am sorry to say that none of us in Committee has been able to extract from the Minister or the Secretary of State the reason for the Bill. We have asked about the consequences if it were not introduced. We were told that the IRA is disarming, or even that it has disarmed and stood down its units, but to the question, “What will be the consequences if we don’t introduce the legislation?”, there has been no answer. We have asked who the legislation is for. Surely the victims and the relatives of the victims are those who matter, yet they do not want the legislation, so what is it for?
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked why it was necessary for these people to come back. Will a great success have been achieved if people come back to Northern Ireland from abroad or beyond the jurisdiction, obtain a certificate and get a licence? Will we really have achieved that much? Why go through all the pain? What will be achieved?
The Secretary of State also said on Second Reading that there is a sort of acceptance that there would be no punishment. He said that people are not being punished now because they are on the run. If we follow  that argument through to its logical conclusion, we could say here in Great Britain that if a murder is committed and the police know who committed the murder but have not caught that person, after a while we can say, “Okay, we have not caught that person and brought him to justice, so let us write the crime off completely.” That is the logic conclusion of the Bill.
We tabled amendments similar to that tabled by the hon. Member for East Antrim. We are short of time in Committee, but the fact that I have made a brief speech should not be taken to mean that I and the other Conservative members of the Committee—when they turn up—are not worried about this aspect of the Bill. We are most concerned. We are offended by it. During my eight years in the House, there have been times when legislation passed in connection in Northern Ireland has almost made me ashamed of my profession, and today is one such day.

David Hanson: I welcome you back to the Chair for the Committee’s final sitting, Mr. Taylor.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Antrim would require a convicted certificate holder to serve up to five years of his sentence before becoming eligible for release on licence. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) would require a person who is sentenced to life to serve at least two years and a person who is sentenced to five or more years to serve at least one year. I ask my hon. Friends to reject the amendments, and I shall explain why.
I shall deal with the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for East Antrim first, and I hope that the Committee will reflect on a point that I made to him this morning. We need to address position of people who are outside the jurisdiction, which was an anomaly left over from the Good Friday agreement. Hon. Members may not accept that, but that is the Government’s position.
I cannot believe that individuals outside the jurisdiction will return to Northern Ireland if, at the end of the special tribunal, they face a potential prison sentence for the crimes that they committed. I understand that that may cause the hon. Gentleman some difficulty, in terms of the conditions that individuals will face when they return, but the purpose of the scheme is to tie up that anomaly and to ensure that individuals come back and face trial in the special tribunal. During that court case, victims and their families can find out what happened and, ultimately, an individual can be convicted for his crime and be released on licence. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would mean that those outside the jurisdiction would not return, which would make the process meaningless.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister is basically reiterating the position. He is not telling us why it is so important that these people come back. He mentioned the victims, but the victims do not want this legislation. I know that he has promised to review the non-appearance part of the Bill, but the whole Bill was put together with non-appearance in mind. It could not  have been in the Government’s mind that the victims would know who committed the crime when the Bill was drawn up.

David Hanson: I am trying your patience, Mr. Taylor, but let me go back a stage, briefly. Under the Bill as originally published, individuals did not have to appear before the special tribunal. I have agreed to review that matter and to reflect on it, but even if we maintained the original position in which individuals would not attend court—and I am not suggesting that we do that—the individuals would still be known. A named individual would face trial in a special tribunal, he would receive a conviction if found guilty, and he would ultimately be released on licence.
The purpose of the scheme is to ensure that the victim knows that a named individual had been convicted of a crime that involved their loved ones. The named individual would have a criminal record and would serve a sentence released on licence. The fact that I am reflecting on the question of appearance in court may change that aspect of the matter, but it does not change the argument that I put to the hon. Member for East Antrim, which is that if a prison sentence of five years or more awaits those who are outside the jurisdiction, they will not return, so there will be no criminal conviction, no individual with a criminal record, and no individual appearing in court for that crime. I accept that the hon. Gentleman wants justice, but I respectfully tell him that no justice will be served by non-appearance in court.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister accept that if the perpetrators of crimes decide to remain outside the jurisdiction—they are the ones who want to get back in—that, to victims, would be far preferable to seeing them waltz back in and get a licence without having to appear before a tribunal?

David Hanson: If we do otherwise, the individuals who are outside the jurisdiction would not have a conviction—they would not be convicted of crimes for which they would have to face trial if they were brought back to the jurisdiction. I accept that they will not face a prison sentence because they will be released on licence, but the hon. Gentleman has to make a judgment. Does he wish to put in place with the amendment a minimum five-year sentence, which nobody will have to serve because no one will return to face the tribunal, or does he want individuals to return, face the tribunal, be sentenced and given a conviction on licence? That is the choice in his amendment.

Peter Robinson: With respect, the Minister is beginning to sound ridiculous. He is attempting to tell the Committee that although we are dealing with the very people who have bent the Government’s arm up their back to produce the Bill, because they hate being fugitives so much and hate not being allowed back into Northern Ireland, he is prepared to go through the ridiculous process of introducing legislation allowing them to get a get-out-of-jail-free card. They want to get back; they are the ones who are pursuing the matter and who do not like the situation. The victims do not want it.

David Hanson: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the agreement published in May 2003, which indicated the nature of the scheme.

Peter Robinson: An agreement with the terrorists, not the victims.

David Hanson: The point is that the hon. Gentleman and the victims will not have an individual in court, being convicted and being released on licence, because people will not return if they face a five-year prison sentence. That is a simple fact.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; he has been extremely generous throughout the entire Committee. He keeps saying, “The victims will not have,” but the victims do not want the Bill. Will he deal with that?

David Hanson: I accept that the victims I have spoken to are sceptical about many aspects of the Bill, but I say openly and honestly to the hon. Gentleman that I believe that they ultimately want to see a conviction for the offence committed against their loved ones. I might be wrong, but in my judgment the proposal made by the Member for East Antrim will mean that, however much individuals want to return to Northern Ireland, they will not return to face a tribunal to be convicted and sentenced to five year years in jail. [Interruption.] They may return to the jurisdiction if they face the tribunal as planned under the scheme that we propose, to receive a conviction on licence and to be able to work in society.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend may have just heard hon. Members saying, “So what?” from a sedentary position. Does he agree with me that the divisions that we have seen on the Bill and on this amendment are very much about saying “So what?”? We believe that the Bill will push the process further forward, which is necessary. The answer to, “So what?” is “So that the process is pushed forward and delivers some form of justice, albeit diluted, and a record of criminal intent and terrorist activity.”

David Hanson: I have said all along that the purpose of the Bill, distasteful and unpleasant though it is, and let no one in the Committee accept that it is not so, is to ensure that we—

Peter Robinson: Appease the IRA.

David Hanson: Mr. Taylor, It is difficult to continue to speak to the Committee when there are a lot of sedentary interventions. As you have seen, I am happy to take interventions. If the hon. Member for Belfast, East wants to put his comments on the record, let him do so.

Lady Hermon: Thank you, Mr. Taylor, I am delighted to see you in the Chair this afternoon.
The Minister has tried to persuade the Committee to reject the amendment moved by the Member for East Antrim, on the basis that when the on-the-runs return they will, to paraphrase the Minister, receive a sentence and will be convicted. With the greatest  respect to the Minister, he cannot persuade the Committee that the special tribunal—one person, retired or otherwise—will convict anyone, particularly since clause 7 means that there is a stop factor when the certificate of eligibility is issued and no further police investigation may continue.

David Taylor: Order. That is a long intervention. Let me also say that I deplore the scale of sedentary interventions. Will hon. Members please make an appropriate request to intervene to the Minister?

David Hanson: I say to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that I cannot guarantee that anybody will be convicted. However, the individuals who are likely to return are likely to face conviction and the mechanism is there if they are convicted of the crime. I cannot prejudge a court case. However, the fact that there will be a considerable amount of evidence in the hands of the police against the person who applies for a certificate and that person would have been arrested had they not been outside it means that the police will have a good opportunity to take forward a number of successful cases. I hope that I have covered the points raised by the amendment.

Sammy Wilson: Is the Minister saying that victims would prefer the perpetrators of a crime to be able to walk up and down their street after coming back and getting a licence to having them outside the jurisdiction as fugitives on the run? That is the choice offered by the Bill. I believe that victims would rather the fugitives were outside the jurisdiction than walking up and down their streets.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I would never presume to speak on behalf of the victims of crimes in Northern Ireland. I simply make a judgment on whether there should be a potential conviction for a crime to help to resolve some of the issues that we have faced in the past. Under the scheme, the potential for conviction means that an individual will return and face a trial, and if they are found guilty, they will be convicted. It should be self-evident—distasteful though it may be—that if people face a five-year sentence on return, they will not return, and if they do not return, there will never be a conviction, nor will the person in question be held on licence for that crime.
There is an honest disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and me, but I am trying, on behalf of the Government, to resolve some of the anomalies outstanding from the Good Friday agreement. At the same time, I hope to offer some comfort to relatives if, at the end of the day, an individual has been convicted of the murder of their loved ones.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will the Minister confirm that the UK Government have now suspended or ended all their extradition treaties with all the foreign countries in which such fugitives may be residing? It seems that we are not able to bring them back except through this legislation.

David Hanson: My understanding is that, if extradition treaties exist, we are exercising that power when that is possible. We have been trying to do that for years. We are where we are.
Questions were also raised about what would happen to the subjects of current inquiries by the historic inquiries team. In addressing the status of those who are currently outside the jurisdiction, the Government are committed to granting licences without any time being served in prison—difficult though that may be. Given that we have made arrangements for returning on-the-runs, it is only reasonable that the same conditions should be available to those who come after them. Again, that relates to offences committed before 10 April 1998 and the Good Friday agreement.
Finally, I confirm to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) what I have just said to him. Nothing in the scheme detracts from our international obligations on extradition.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister has emphasised the need to bring people back to Northern Ireland to face justice. The justice that they will face is, of course, not the justice that the victims ever wanted. It seems that the only defence for imposing no prison sentence on such people is that it is the only way to get them back into Northern Ireland. They will go through a charade, get a licence and walk free. I believe that the victims would much prefer those people to stay on the run and remain fugitives. After all, the Bill was designed and requested to allow people who are outside the jurisdiction to come back to Northern Ireland free from prosecution. That was the driving force. The Bill is a reward to those who cannot return to Northern Ireland because of the crimes they have committed or because they have escaped from prison and know that they would face a prison sentence if they came back. Given that they sought to avoid convictions for the crimes that they committed, it is only right that they should receive some degree of punishment.
 It is important to note the inconsistency. The Minister has not mentioned the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people who might be covered by the cold case review, and who will not have to be brought back into the jurisdiction because they are already in the jurisdiction. If their cases were to come before the tribunal, why should they not serve a sentence on the grounds of consistency, given that some of their colleagues serve prison sentences even under the Belfast agreement?
This is an important amendment. The Minister cannot make a defence for opposing it, other than to state that the terrorists have demanded that they should not serve a day in prison. In order to give some recognition to victims, we in this Committee and in this House should not be prepared to accede to that demand.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 6, Noes 19.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in clause 9, page 6, line 24, leave out ‘non-intimate’.
We have reached the stage where we must impose upon ourselves some serious time strictures, so I will attempt to deal with the amendment in one minute, and I am sure that the Minister’s response will be equally brief.
This is a probing amendment. It would remove the word “non-intimate” from clause 9(2), which states that the Secretary of State is entitled to require those who are accused, and are benefiting from having been granted a licence, to provide fingerprints, to be in attendance themselves, and to provide “non-intimate samples.” Does that mean that there is a prohibition on the police being given the DNA of the individual? According to the explanatory notes, such samples will be supplied “for identification purposes”, although that is not included in the Bill. Does “for identification purposes” mean that the authorities can take such samples only to make sure that they have the person who is named on the original certificate, or can they take them to identify whether they have been involved in other crimes—or, indeed, in case they become involved in further crimes? No restriction should be applied in respect of samples.
As I have said, this is a probing amendment; I hope that that is not an unfortunate phrase to use, as we are talking about non-intimate samples. Whatever samples are required by the police should be available, not only because it will allow them to determine whether there are other charges that the individual should face historically, but because in the event of future actions the samples—fingerprints and so on—will be available to them, so that they can ensure that the person does not offend in future.

David Hanson: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on the points that he raised. The amendment is unnecessary for the purposes of identification. The special tribunal may have to take non-intimate samples. Such samples include a range of matters that I could read into the record if it would help the hon. Gentleman. The essential thing is that DNA can be taken from a non-intimate sample, and  such a measure is therefore an appropriate one for future involvement in a range of issues.
Non-intimate samples include the following: a sample of a person’s hair, other than their pubic hair; a sample taken from a nail or under a nail; a swab taken from a part of the person’s body, including the mouth; saliva; and a footprint or similar impression. That will allow for DNA to be taken as a non-intimate sample. I hope that that will assure the hon. Gentleman and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Peter Robinson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lembit Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in clause 9, page 6, line 31, at beginning insert
‘Except as provided by subsection (5A)’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 72, in clause 9, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
‘(5A)Where a person on licence under this section had pleaded guilty at his trial to the offence, the Secretary of State may reduce the duration of the licence by up to a quarter of the sentence.’.
No. 78, in clause 9, page 6, line 35, leave out subsection (6).
No. 79, in clause 9, page 6, line 41, leave out ‘(6)’ and insert ‘(5A)’.

Lembit Öpik: Amendments Nos. 77, 72 and 79 relate to providing incentives for people to come forward to admit their crimes. As we have done in previous amendments, we are trying to provide a defendant with an incentive to admit to what they have done.
There is nothing in the Bill that would provide an incentive for someone to admit to committing any crime or any of the serious offences with which they might be charged. That is because it is up to the Police Service of Northern Ireland to state the offences that it thinks are relevant to a particular individual rather than it being up to the applicant to state the offences. It is also because a person cannot be detained or questioned. No powers of entry or search are allowed. As a result, the prosecution case will potentially be very weak. In addition, if a person is found guilty at the tribunal they can appeal. As we know, they will not serve a single minute in custody or in jail. Given all those provisions, what possible reason would anyone have to come forward to admit to what they have done?
I would understand any concern in the Committee about the amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on it. I do not particularly like proposing that a person’s time on licence may be shortened, but it provides some kind of incentive for a defendant to stand up to admit that they have done wrong. The Government have argued about bringing closure through this Bill. How can that be done if lots of people are simply unwilling to come forward?

Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as currently worded, clause 9 gives one group of people an incentive to come forward: those who are at present languishing at Her Majesty’s pleasure but who can apply for a licence under the clause and get their sentence commuted to an amnesty?

Lembit Öpik: The hon. Lady is right. I had not considered that. People who are in prison could use the provision as a get-out-of-jail-free card. The Minister might want to comment on that.
Amendment No. 78 has widespread support. I tabled it because I wanted an explanation from the Government as to what subsection (6), particularly its paragraph (b), means. Does it mean that where someone should have been sentenced in 1970 to 20 years, for example, the fact that more than two thirds of 20 years has already passed means that they will not have to be subject to the licence?

David Hanson: I will ask my hon. Friends to oppose the amendment, but the hon. Gentleman’s proposal is interesting, and I do not reject it out of hand. The idea behind it might be considered in the future, but sadly, there is a technical defect in the amendment itself; because of the way that it is phrased, it will not achieve what the hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve, and I cannot accept it for that reason. The amendment is intended to ensure that, following a guilty plea, the duration of the sentence is reduced. However, it would reduce the element of licence, but the sentence would remain. Therefore, if an individual were to plead guilty and their licence was reduced or removed, at the end of that licence period he or she would have to serve a period in prison.

Tobias Ellwood: I am sorry that I had to dash out of the room, Mr. Taylor. My cold is getting worse.
According to the Library notes on the Bill, there are 127 failed applications from the original Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) mentioned, a lot of people are currently in prison. How does this Bill affect those people?
If I could—

David Taylor: Order. We will take one intervention at a time.

David Hanson: If I may, I will address the point raised by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) shortly, after I have dealt with the first part of the amendment.
Despite the amendment’s technical failing—it would have the opposite effect to what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire wants to achieve—I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s proposals. However, let me explain the guiding principle of our scheme: as far as possible, within the terms of the Government’s commitment of 2003, we would have a judicial process, and what Members have said about that process will also be taken into account. Seeking a guilty plea as the hook on which to hang the special  remission of sentence, rather than seeking a confession or statement of remorse, would make things much harder to quantify in due course.
The amendment has technical problems, and sentencing should not be placed directly in the hands of the Secretary of State, which the amendment would effectively do, instead of in the hands of the judge. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has made suggestions for a judicial solution: as I have said, I am not cool towards that, and I will reflect on his proposals.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East raised a question about clause 9(6). That provides that if an individual gets a licence, the licence and sentence last only as long as the sentence, if the person gets time off for remission, as in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. If an individual is already in jail, they can apply for the scheme under clause 3(2)(c), but it will only apply to those who are already eligible for the early release scheme after two years, under the 1998 Act. Again, the defining moment in respect of offences is 10 April 1998.
I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will not press his amendment to a Division. There might be some merit in it—I can say no more than that—but I want to examine the issues, and the current amendment is technically incapable of achieving his objectives.

Lembit Öpik: I am not completely clear about the Minister’s explanation in respect of amendment No. 78. I was following what he was saying—but, obviously, not closely enough.

David Hanson: I have just ripped up my notes on that. For the first time in Committee, I must say that, for that reason, that is a matter that I will reflect on in future. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard and reflects on what I have said, he will realise that the points that I brought before the Committee are valid. I think that he will subscribe to the comments made on clause 9(6), which he mentioned, when he reflects on them.

Tobias Ellwood: May I press the Minister on that? There are a number of people who have not been released from prison, as we have established—127, according to the Library research paper. It seems strange that we are inviting on-the-runs, some of whom have committed heinous crimes, back into Northern Ireland when others who may have committed lesser crimes are being made to continue their punishment. The concerns being expressed under the amendments are about seeing justice done, and about the fact that we are inviting back people who are on the run, but there seems to be a discrepancy. If I were to come forward and say—

David Taylor: Order. Interventions should be brief.

David Hanson: There are a number of categories of individual that will qualify under the Bill. There are those outside the jurisdiction who will qualify; there are those before the historic inquiries team who will qualify; and there are those in the security forces who  will qualify. At some point in future, depending on the time scale of the introduction of the scheme, individuals in jail may reach the stage at which they can apply for the scheme. I do not have the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned on the number of individuals.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether someone who fails to get a licence under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 can get a Northern Ireland (Offences) Act licence. That depends on whether they are eligible, and that takes us back to the eligibility criteria in clause 3; they may qualify for the scheme at the time of its introduction. I hope that that answers his point.

Lady Hermon: For the record, will the Minister confirm that certain prisoners are now eligible, under clause 9, to apply for the scheme and to have their sentence commuted to an amnesty? Also, will he confirm that Mr. Sean Kelly and Mr. Johnny Adair et al. can have their current licence commuted to a preferable licence under the scheme?

David Hanson: The hon. Lady is correct, in so far as individuals who are in jail when the scheme is introduced can avail themselves of it, just as they can, at present, avail themselves of the early release scheme if their offences were committed prior to 10 April 1998. Again, I cannot yet tell the hon. Lady when that will be effective, because we cannot at this stage give a date for the introduction of the scheme, because it depends on parliamentary procedure, and the approval and introduction of the Bill. An individual would need to be eligible for the scheme—that is, they would need to meet the conditions, which are similar to those in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 for the early release scheme. That would ultimately be a matter for the certification commissioner to determine.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Does this mean that Ken Barrett, for example, who was convicted of the murder of Pat Finucane, and who is serving a prison term, but whose crime was committed before 10 April 1998, would be eligible to apply for a licence under the Bill? Given that he has been refused early release by the Sentence Review Commission, will similar criteria be applied, and how will his case be handled under the criteria?

David Hanson: I do not want to comment in detail on individual cases, because it is not appropriate to do so in this discussion. However, when the scheme is operational, individuals will be able to apply for it, and if they are eligible under the certification commissioner’s guidance, they will qualify for the scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that I cannot comment on individual cases at this time.

Tobias Ellwood: I am concerned that there is a loophole. I could come forward and say that I committed the crimes attributed of one of the 127 people who failed to qualify for the early release scheme, and who said that they were innocent. I could come forward and say, “I committed that crime; that person in jail should really be free.” I could then be granted a licence, and I would go free. I would then have a document that I cared about less than I do a few  points on my driver’s licence. The person in prison, who did commit the murder, would then also be set free, because it would be thought that he did not take part in the murder.

David Hanson: There were several suppositions in the hon. Gentleman’s argument that I cannot go into, but one was about an individual who says that he has undertaken a crime for someone who is in jail for it at the moment. In all such matters, there must first be an investigation by the police. Under clause 3, people need to have a certificate of eligibility. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has to state in writing reasonable grounds for the charge. People need to be outside the jurisdiction and must satisfy other criteria. A range of issues must be examined by the police and others. Again, under earlier provisions, the certification commissioner’s approval must be obtained for the individual to qualify for the scheme. Given the examples that have been put forward, I cannot suppose either generally or specifically what the certification commissioner will decide nor whether the individuals will qualify for the scheme in those circumstances.

David Taylor: Order. I do not intend to accept any more interventions on that particular point, as they are not aimed at the amendment itself.

David Hanson: On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to withdraw the amendment.

Lembit Öpik: I am flabbergasted. The Minister has more or less conceded that, on amendment No. 78, he has ripped apart his own defence. He has thrown it on the ground and cannot read it back to me. I shall read what was said in Hansard, but I need assurance on a core point. If a person ought to have been sentenced in 1970 to, say, 20 years in prison and, in theory, will have served more than two thirds of his time, is the hon. Gentleman saying that that will not prevent the person from ending up with a licence and so on? I should be grateful if he would clarify matters.

David Hanson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no. A fixed-term prisoner outside the scheme will have his sentence reduced by remission. He will be released at the two-thirds point. Clause 9(6) is designed to ensure consistency with that principle.

Lembit Öpik: Perhaps I am being thick about this—[Interruption.]—if such a thing were possible, but I am still not clear whether, under subsection (6)(b), someone who is found guilty through the process would actually not end up having to serve time on a licence at all. The Minister read out something that was connected with the matter, but it was not a direct answer to my question. I am pursuing this because I would have a major problem if—

David Hanson: As I have said that I am not unwarm to some of the hon. Gentleman’s points, would it be helpful if I wrote to him to clarify matters? I know that that is always the defence that is used when answers are  not clear, but it is the first time that I have made that suggestion in the Committee. If he withdraws his amendment now, he will still be at liberty to table it on Report if he is unhappy with my clarification.

Lembit Öpik: That is a helpful suggestion. If that unintended consequence is indeed inherent in the clause, the Government would probably want to consider it. On that basis, I shall not pursue amendment No. 78 to a vote.
As for the other amendments, and how we might incentivise individuals to come forward and take responsibility for proactively admitting to serious offences, I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister is willing to reflect on these matters. I see no party political element to this. On reflection, he may find the suggestion helpful and want to introduce it on Report. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Disqualification from district policing partnership—
‘(1)Paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2)In sub-paragraph (4) after “licence” insert “under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998”.
(3)After sub-paragraph (4)(a) insert—
“(aa)the lapse of his licence issued under section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Act 2006.”.’.

Lembit Öpik: The Minister might wish to consider the new clause in the same frame of mind as he did the previous group of amendments. Currently, a person who has benefited from the prisoner early release scheme is entitled to become an independent member of a district policing partnership, if nominated, by virtue of their licence. I am concerned that the same principle will apply to anyone who receives a licence under the scheme in this Bill, as there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that.
I imagine that, by definition, if someone receives a licence under the Bill, it will have been proven that they committed an offence in relation to terrorism. But they will not have been to prison and they may not therefore have been seen to have been rehabilitated, which, after all, was one of the elements that was assumed to have occurred with individuals who end up on district policing partnerships having served time for their offences.
As the Minister knows, there are already serious concerns in Northern Ireland at paramilitaries being allowed to serve on DPPs; I believe that there will be even more concern about anyone who is granted a licence under the Bill doing so. The new clause does not prevent a person with a licence from ever serving on a DPP, however. They will be able to do so once their licence expires. I assume that they would not have broken the conditions of their licence by that time or,  if they had, they would have been detained. So that is an insurance policy to ensure lawful behaviour by the individual before they become a member of a DPP.
The new clause would ensure that there is confidence in such appointments, should they ever occur. I seek the Minister’s views on that.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing the new clause in the way that he has. We have had a reasonable discussion on the provisions of the legislation and I hope that clause 9 will stand part of the Bill.
New clause 9, which the hon. Gentleman tabled, raises an important issue. I know that he raised it in a genuine, productive and constructive way. The effect of the new clause would be to permit someone convicted and released on licence under this scheme to be a member of a DPP once their licence has expired. It closely reflects provisions made in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 by the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 that would allow those convicted of an offence and released on licence under the early release scheme to join a DPP.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will know that the Government have not currently commenced that provision. We have not done so because we made a decision not to do so until such time as we judge it right to introduce the provision. We have not yet made such a judgment and will not do so at least until the Assembly has been restored and possibly until, at some future point, criminal justice matters have been devolved to it.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister just put it on the record that the Government’s position on allowing those with criminal records to take their places on DPPs as independent members is completely contrary to the recommendation in the Patten report? They have driven a coach and horses through that report. Will he confirm that point?

David Hanson: As the hon. Lady knows, I am not the Minister with direct responsibility for the police, and I would not wish to give the Committee an answer that proved subsequently to be false. I am not aware of the Patten report’s recommendation on this matter. I am being open and honest with the hon. Lady in saying that. It is not my direct area of responsibility.
I can say something that is within my area of responsibility, however. The provisions for serving on the DPPs under the legislation that I mentioned have not been commenced by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), for the simple reason that we have not yet judged that the time is right for us to do that as a Government.
My hon. Friend will consider when the time will be right at some point in the future. That judgment will depend on two conditions: a restoration of the Assembly and other issues such as a return of policing responsibilities to the Assembly. We have to make a judgment on the issue as a Government, and I do not  wish to mislead the hon. Lady on a question to which I do not know the answer because it is not within my direct area of responsibility.
The Government have identified the subject of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire as an issue for possible examination in future. However, again, they have not made a decision on that. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clause.

Lembit Öpik: I understand what the Minister says about the non-commencement of the core legislation. If that legislation were commenced and if new clause 9 were not agreed to, would not the consequence be as I described in my opening comments? In other words, at least in theory, somebody could apply for and be successful in being taken on by a DPP even while they were serving a licence.

David Hanson: Indeed, the scenario painted by the hon. Gentleman is correct. I say to him again that the Government have identified that issue; we are reflecting on it at the moment. We have not commenced the clauses in other legislation that would give rise to the anomaly that could occur in this legislation for the reasons that I have outlined. There may be opportunities, either during the passage of this Bill or during consideration of further Northern Ireland legislation that may come forward in the next 12 months, to examine that issue in the event of our determining to implement the original legislation in the 2000 and 2003 Acts.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the points that he has made. I cannot give him a definitive answer because we have not yet determined whether to progress the scheme as a whole in relation to previous legislation. If we do, an anomaly will be created, and that is one element on which the Government will have to reflect during the passage of this Bill—and, if this Bill is passed in its current form, during future legislation—to address that anomaly.

Lembit Öpik: The Minister’s comments are helpful, but slightly disturbing for the following reason. He said that he would like to reflect on the issue now, but also implies—in fact, says explicitly—that if the other legislation were commenced, then, and only then, would this legislation be altered.

David Hanson: I am saying that, under previous legislation, there is already provision to allow individuals to take part in the DPPs once their licence has expired under the early release scheme. That provision is in place, but has not been commenced because the Government have not judged that the time is right to commence it. At some point in the future, we may judge that the time is right. If, two or three years down the line, the scheme is introduced, the anomaly may well arise. Before that, there will be opportunities to consider whether to extend the legislation to cover this scheme, and whether to introduce the scheme at all.

David Taylor: Order. I remind the Committee that interventions, particularly ministerial interventions, should be short.

Lembit Öpik: I am grateful for your forbearance, Mr. Taylor; the dialogue is constructive and helpful. My concern continues to be that although the Minister says that the anomaly—this loophole—will be addressed when other legislation is commenced, there is a risk that it will be forgotten. My concern is that if we do not provide for it in this Bill now, we shall end up with an anomaly, an unintended consequence, that we are in a position to fix now.
I was hoping that the Minister would say that he would reflect on the matter and consider tabling, if necessary, a Government amendment on Report, to close a loophole about which neither of us disagree, but which I feel we could reasonably address now.
I have one other thought. I do not see how resolving the issue now would involve any cost to the Government. If I understand things correctly, putting such a provision in the Bill today would in no way cause the commencement of the legislative procedure that allows those under licence to enter DPPs.

David Hanson: If the hon. Gentleman presses his amendment, I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to reject it.

Lembit Öpik: I know. I was not expecting to win. I am not trying to beat the Government; I am trying to help them.
To be equally direct to the Minister, I wish that he would say, “This is a fair point, the Government will look at it and we’ll table a Government amendment on Report; then we can close the loophole.” It is not complicated.

David Hanson: I thought that I had said that, but if I have not I shall try again at some point in future.

Lembit Öpik: I am deliriously enlightened by, and grateful for, what the Minister says.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 16, Noes 10.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Conditions of licence

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 135, in clause 10, page 7, line 9, leave out from beginning to second ‘the’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 137, in clause 10, page 7, line 12, at end insert—
‘(d)that he has never been convicted of a crime carrying a prison sentence of five years or more.’.

Laurence Robertson: Clause 10 deals with the conditions to which the licence is subject. Subsection (2)(b) refers to:
“in the case of a sentence of life imprisonment, the condition that he does not become a danger to the public”
Amendment No. 135 would omit the words
“in the case of a sentence of life imprisonment”,
so that the provision would apply if the person became a danger to the public, regardless of whether was a life sentence. That is sensible. We cannot understand why that should be a licence condition if one has received a life sentence, but not if one has not. Surely, the critical point is whether the person is likely to be a danger to the public. To reject the amendment would be to say, “It’s okay if they are a danger to the public.” That cannot be the Minister’s intention.
We tried to introduce a similar condition in clause 3, but we did not manage to get the amendment made. We are not certain yet whether people returning to the jurisdiction will have to face court—indeed, there will not be a court, but a tribunal—or whether they will have to spend any time in prison. Surely we can expect that they do not become a danger to the public, having been given the get-out-of-jail-free card. That should be a minimum requirement.
Amendment No. 137 would add a further condition to ensure that the individual in question has never been convicted of a crime carrying a prison sentence of five years or more.

David Hanson: The amendments would place additional conditions on a person holding a licence. In normal criminal proceedings, the judgment on whether a person is a danger to the public is relevant in decisions on the passing of a life sentence, but it is not used in other circumstances. The proposal is therefore a departure from normal criminal proceedings.

Laurence Robertson: If the Minister is saying that terrorists in Northern Ireland should be treated in the same way as murderers in Great Britain, I go along with that, but I do not think that that is what the Bill is about. It is about creating special conditions—letting people go free no matter what they have done. Surely we can then impose the restriction that they do not become a danger to the public?

David Hanson: I would be very hesitant about setting a precedent in the Bill on that matter.

Tobias Ellwood: The Bill is a precedent.

David Hanson: I would be very hesitant about setting a precedent in the Bill in that respect.
I also point out to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that consideration of whether a person is a danger to the public is only a part of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 early release scheme in respect of lifers. The conditions of licence are to be kept broadly similar in the Bill so that similar terms and treatment can be applied to people convicted of pre-Belfast agreement offences. The Government prefer the conditions to be kept as similar as possible.
There is a clear distinction between the terms of the early release scheme and the conditions of the scheme in the Bill: we have added the condition that a person must not have received a sentence of five years or more for any offence. That has been done simply in recognition of the fact that the early release scheme has applied primarily to people who were in prison in 1998. The new scheme acknowledges that seven years have elapsed since then and that there needs to be some measure of an applicant’s behaviour. To keep the terms of the scheme as close as possible to the terms of the early release scheme, that condition in relation to other offences applies only to the period after April 1998.
We have taken steps to tighten the licence, and I urge the hon. Member for Tewkesbury to withdraw the amendment.

Peter Robinson: We have now reached the utterly absurd. I cannot understand why the Minister resists the amendment. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said, it is similar to one that the Conservatives tabled to clause 3 on the certificate of eligibility and conditions that would be imposed on it, and to one that my colleagues and I tabled in respect of those certificates.
I want the Minister to be very clear about what he is saying to the public in Northern Ireland. He is saying that the only people who are a danger to the public whom he wants to stop having a licence are those who have been sentenced to life in prison. He is quite content to allow people who are a danger to the public to be released on licence provided that they have not been given a life sentence. That is a position that the Minister cannot possibly defend.
The Minister should not talk to this Committee about setting precedents. Every clause, every line and every word of this Bill has set precedents that I hope will never be followed in any other piece of legislation.

Tobias Ellwood: With respect to the Minister, I found his remarks about precedents astonishing. This entire Bill is a precedent. I have not come across anything like it in my short time in the House, and more experienced Members have also not seen a Bill that sets such a precedent in respect of dealing with criminals. The Bill is very controversial; that is why we have been given extra time to debate the entire Bill.
The Bill invites on-the-runs back to Northern Ireland. It invites criminals back into communities. Surely the Committee’s concern must be to make sure that those on the run who have not spent one day in jail and who are to go back to those communities will not be a danger to them. That is what the amendment is designed to achieve. It would make sure that, with all the wrongs in the Bill, we do not put those communities in any more danger. If the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment, I invite him to say on the record that he is not willing to accept the amendment, but he is willing to give a licence to on-the-runs who have not been given a life sentence but who are a danger to society, and happy to allow them to rejoin society.

David Hanson: What I have tried to do in the Bill is to mirror the early release scheme in respect of life sentences. That mirroring will ensure that, as is the case under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act early release scheme, consideration of whether a person is a danger to the public forms part of the scheme in respect of life sentences.

Peter Robinson: Why does the Minister insist on using terms such as “mirror the early release scheme” of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act? He is doing nothing of the kind. Under that Act, those who are responsible for murder had to stay in jail for a third of their sentence or serve at least two more years. It is not mirroring the Act to say, “Here’s your get-out-of-jail free card. Away you go, boys!”

David Hanson: Over the many hours that the Committee has sat, we have gone over how the scheme in the Bill compares to the early release scheme. I am talking about conditions of release in relation to that point. The hon. Gentleman and I know that there are qualitative differences between the early release scheme under the Good Friday agreement and the scheme that we are bringing forward today; but those differences relate simply to the passage of time, not the effect of, or entrance to, that scheme. Consideration of whether a person was a danger to the public was only part of the 1998 Act early release scheme. In the scheme before us, I am trying to mirror the conditions that applied in the early release scheme that operated 1998.
Let me put the issue in context. It is important that hon. Members take note of these figures: of the 447 prisoners released under the early release scheme, 15 have had their licences suspended and were recalled to prison. The same conditions that I am proposing in the Bill related to the Sentences Act, under which only 15 of 447 prisoners had their licence revoked. The assessment for the early-release scheme is similar to that for the scheme in the Bill.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister says that only 15 prisoners have had their licence removed, but some of them were responsible for destroying the community in the lower Shankill and disrupting the lives of hundreds of people in that community. One person who had his licence revoked was found by the police to be responsible for stirring up interface violence at the  top of the Shankill road at the Ardoyne, which resulted in scores of people losing their homes, so let us not make light of the fact that only 15 licences were removed. People lose their licence because they are a danger to the public. Whether it is one or 100, tight conditions are essential.

David Hanson: What I have said to the Committee relates only to the amendment on whether the condition of being a danger to the public at large applies. That condition was part of the early release scheme, just as I propose that it should be part of the scheme in the Bill. The condition was applied to people with life sentences. All I said to hon. Members in my response was that I am trying to ensure the same conditions for the scheme in this Bill.
I mentioned the figures to show how early release scheme has worked and its impact. Some 447 people went through the early release scheme and only 15 had their licences revoked, and of those 15, 14 are in prison today. I simply tell the hon. Member for East Antrim that to give him a measure of how the previous scheme operated. Although I know that he and his party did not like the scheme and opposed it, I am seeking to replicate in the Bill the conditions in the previous scheme. That is why I ask my colleagues to reject the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Member for Belfast, East put it rather well when he said that we have reached the position of ultimate absurdity, or words to that effect.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Minister has just stated that 15 people had their licences revoked, 14 of whom are in prison. I am aware of at least two of those cases. They involve Sean Kelly and Johnny Adair, who are both out of prison at the moment. The Minister’s figures cannot possibly be right and he has misled the Committee.
Mr. Hansonrose—

Laurence Robertson: I shall reply to the intervention, then give way. I am unsure what the relevance of the figures was. They do not tell us anything. At a certain point in the process people were not arrested for being members of the IRA. That did not mean that the IRA had gone away; it just meant that it was politically convenient not to arrest them for that particular offence.

Peter Robinson: Perhaps the Minister is saying that if the amendment was agreed to we would be able to stop 15 people who went out and caused mayhem in the community from doing just that. He was probably willing to accept the amendment.

Laurence Robertson: I cannot understand the Minister’s reasoning. Perhaps he will tell us what it is when he intervenes.

David Hanson: I am intervening only to say to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley that I have not misled the Committee. I gave out the figures that I have before me, which are Government figures.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I feel a bit like a referee in this contest. Perhaps facilitator might be a better word.
May I suggest to the Minister that he asks his officials to check those figures and that he writes to members of the Committee? The hon. Member for Lagan Valley has named people who are not in prison. None the less, I do not see how the Minister’s point about the number of licences that have been withdrawn is that relevant to the point that I was making.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East said, to shy away from the amendments because they might set a precedent is beyond belief. The entire Bill is a precedent—an unwelcome one. To give just one example of many that can be found in the Bill, retired judges do not preside over murder cases in Great Britain.
The Minister says that he wants to be consistent with the position on life sentences in Great Britain, but to my knowledge, people who get life sentences go to prison. It is a condition of parole that people are not released until they are not a danger to the public, but such people are already in prison. The situation is completely different and we cannot put the two together. The people who will go through the tribunal will not serve a single day in prison.
All the amendment is asking is that people do not become a danger to the public. The clause does not say that the PSNI or anybody else should be involved. It states:
“does not become a danger to the public”.
The condition is not that such people might become a danger to the public but that they actually have become a danger to the public. Can the Minister say that that is okay? I cannot understand how the Government could reject this gentle and sensible amendment.

Tobias Ellwood: There is a big distinction between on-the-runs and those who were part of the original 1998 agreement. We are dealing with hardened criminals. The Minister said that 15 out of 447 is not a bad number. We should be aiming for zero. We have a duty of care to ensure that whatever laws we pass will not impact on the community. I believe that the on-the-runs are hardened criminals. They are not going to join bridge clubs in communities.

Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. I will tell him exactly what such people will do: they will rejoin the IRA if that is where their sympathies lie, because they will not lose their licence or be prevented from benefiting from the scheme if they do so. They will be prevented from entering the scheme if they rejoin or join a specified organisation, but not if they return, join the IRA and, presumably, even become a danger to the public.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 11, Noes 16.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 16, Noes 11.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Suspension and revocation of licence

Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 11, page 7, line 16, at end insert
‘or if the person who holds a licence later glorifies the offence for which the licence was issued.’.
I shall be brief. I hope that other Committee members will move their amendments just as quickly. They did not follow the precedent I set on the previous occasion.
The amendment relates to whether and in what circumstances a licence should be suspended. It indicates that for the purposes of suspension if a licence holder is responsible for glorifying the act to which the licence applies, the licence should be suspended. That does not seem unreasonable to me, and if anybody thinks that such a thing is unlikely, they do not know the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. They have not seen Michael Stone and Johnny Adair going to the Ulster hall after their release, Keenan after his release, the Colombia three being cheered at Sinn Fein conferences, and how quickly the three accused of being in the Stormont spy ring were trailed before the press.
Let us be clear: such things will happen. Rita O’Hare and others will be brought back from the places where they are hiding at present. They will be trailed in front of the press and justify their actions, just as happened in those previous cases. Is that the message that the Minister wants to go out? He said that one of the purposes of this legislation was to draw a line under the past. Surely the victims should not have to endure not only seeing justice denied, but being tormented by those who have already inflicted suffering on them. The amendment would prevent the glorification—a term with which the Government are familiar—of the offence, and that is an issue about which the Government feel strongly. I hope that they will consider the amendment appropriate, and accept it.

David Hanson: I am grateful for way in which the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment. I entirely understand the sentiment behind it and share much of it. The prospect of individuals returning triumphantly to Northern Ireland, receiving a hero’s welcome and parading their activities is unattractive, and would certainly prove galling to victims and the community at large.
I understand entirely the sentiments that have driven the hon. Gentleman to table the amendment. There is a place for restricting the glorification of terrorism—indeed, ensuring that we do just that is a key part of the Government’s proposals this Session. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Terrorism Bill that was recently before the House seeks to do exactly what he wants: to prevent the glorification of terrorism.
My difficulty is that, although I share the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment, I do not think it appropriate that we should rely on this Bill to curb such glorification specifically in respect of offences in Northern Ireland. There is a place for restricting the glorification of terrorism, but I remain of the view that it is best dealt with by the Home Office anti-terrorist legislation, which applies to Northern Ireland and has recently been considered by the House.
I remind Members of the exact terms of the legislation that has already been considered by the House. It states that
“the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which ... glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences”.
I believe that that meets the obligations that in the amendment.

Peter Robinson: The issue is unquestionably the same, but the outcome will not be if the Minister relies on the Terrorism Bill. I spoke on that very clause. Glorification would be a lesser offence. If someone’s licence for a life sentence was suspended, they would be in for life. The Minister is not suggesting that the House will pass legislation that will put somebody in prison for life for the offence of glorification.

David Hanson: I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do not wish this Bill to cut across the Home Office legislation, which covers the offence of the glorification of terrorism. That would be confusing. If individuals were to return and glorify in their actions, I would be revolted, as would all decent, honourable Members. However, as I believe that Home Office legislation will cover that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Peter Robinson: I am unconvinced. People will come back, and they will cause offence, and the Minister will again have allowed the victims to be further insulted and pained by not having taken action.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman made the point that the Terrorism Bill will not have the same effect as the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, but there is another point to consider if we do not agree to the amendment. The Terrorism Bill will not, in practice, be applied in Northern Ireland.

Peter Robinson: Unquestionably, we will have somebody suggesting that it should not be applied, after consideration in the round. The Government used that term the last time a similar case came to court. Therefore, I am afraid that I am not convinced. If the Minister wants to do something for the victims, he should include that in the Bill. If he does not, he will be putting his finger in the victims’ eye once again.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 9, Noes 19.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Lembit Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in clause 11, page 7, line 19, leave out ‘appeals commissioners’ and insert ‘Court of Appeal’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 82, in clause 11, page 7, line 21, leave out ‘appeals commissioners’ and insert ‘Court of Appeal’.
Amendment No. 83, in clause 11, page 7, line 22, leave out ‘commissioners think’ and insert ‘Court thinks’.
Amendment No. 84, in clause 11, page 7, line 23, leave out ‘they’ and insert ‘it’.
Amendment No. 85, in clause 11, page 7, line 24, leave out ‘they’ and insert ‘it’.
Amendment No. 86, in clause 11, page 7, line 25, leave out ‘commissioners’ and insert ‘Court’.
Amendment No. 87, in clause 11, page 7, line 25, leave out ‘their’ and insert ‘its’.
Amendment No. 89, in clause 11, page 7, line 42, leave out subsection (10).
Amendment No. 90, in clause 12, page 8, line 4, leave out ‘appeals commissioners’ and insert ‘Court of Appeal’.
Amendment No. 91, in clause 12, page 8, line 5, leave out ‘appeals commissioners’ and insert ‘Court of Appeal’.
Amendment No. 92, in clause 12, page 8, line 8, leave out ‘appeals commissioners’ and insert ‘Court of Appeal’.
Clause 13 stand part.
Schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Lembit Öpik: The amendments relate to the debate under clause 8 on trial by the Crown court, rather than a special tribunal. We believe that these cases should be tried in the same way as any other terrorist offences, by the criminal justice system of Northern Ireland as it exists. If the cases were to be heard by the Crown court, there would be a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, and the amendments reflect that. This is the simplest way to ensure that there would be full judicial procedure and to give assurance that the system itself is as impartial as a legal system should be.

David Hanson: I hope to be as speedy as the hon. Gentleman. The role of the appeals commissioners is different from that of the Court of Appeal, and its functions would not sit comfortably in that court. Whereas the Court of Appeal hears appeals against a conviction or sentence passed by a lower court, the  appeals commissioners will have the task of reviewing the Secretary of State’s suspension of a licence. The appeals commissioners have a different role.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister clarify one small point that crops up from clause 11? He just said that the Secretary of State will be obliged to—must—give notice of the suspension of a licence to a happy recipient of one of these ghastly licences. How much notice will be given to that person? Will it be seven days, so that he can go the nearest airport and fly back to Benidorm? Will the Minister confirm that it will be a licence with notification from the Secretary of State that will allow that person to leave Northern Ireland before any further proceedings are taken?

David Hanson: The notification will be established in the rules under the scheme, when it is published in due course. The decision about the period of notice has not yet been taken by the Secretary of State. This is a matter not for the legislation, but one that we shall consider when we establish the rules for the scheme.

Lady Hermon: The Minister just confirmed that the net effect of the Bill will come under clause 6: when a person has a certificate of eligibility, there will be a stop on gathering further information. When individuals are notified by the Secretary of State that their licence has been suspended, that means that they can wave their certificate on their way out of Northern Ireland and out of the jurisdiction once again. Is that correct?

David Hanson: That is not my understanding, but I am again straying from the original point of the amendment.
To confirm what I said earlier, I say to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that the commissioner’s principal role will be to review the decision of the Secretary of State to suspend the licence. If, on consideration of the evidence, the commissioners disagree with the Secretary of State’s decision, the licence must be confirmed. If the commissioners decide that the Secretary of State’s decision was correct, the licence will be revoked. That is different procedure from that of the Court of Appeal. I do not agree that the two procedures are comparable. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Lembit Öpik: I understand the Minister’s comments, but I do not accept them because, if minded to do so, the Government could have used the existing court structure. It also seems that they have twisted in the wind a little on their reasons for introducing such a provision. One the one hand, they have argued against certain changes that the Liberal Democrats proposed for the Northern Ireland judicial processes on the basis of cost while, on the other, they have decided to set up a parallel structure to accommodate on-the-runs legislation.

Mark Durkan: Unusually, I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect. Underneath everything else and in the midst of reaching for the preposterous to excuse the outrageous in respect of earlier amendments, the Minister might have a point in  relation to this amendment. [Laughter.] I accept that that is a hard concept to entertain, but surely the reality is that the certification commissioner or the appeals commissioner will be determining not guilt or innocence, but whether the licence has been breached. The role of the Court of Appeal is to deal with questions of guilt or innocence, so we are—

David Taylor: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Lembit Öpik: Just before the hon. Gentleman intervened, I was about to say that I want to move the Minister to agree with me. To give him the space to do so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Lady Hermon: I shall be very brief. Before we leave clause 11, I wish to push the Minister on anything written in black ink on this green paper that concerns a person whose licence is suspended following notification from the Secretary of State.
The Minister said that the Government have not even worked out how much notice will be given of a suspension. What provision can he point to that tells the Committee and the wider public in Northern Ireland that an OTR who has come back and benefited from this huge amnesty cannot, when notified by the Secretary of State of suspension of their licence, walk back out using any local airport, or cross the border into the Republic of Ireland, so that we never see their heels again?

David Hanson: When a licence is suspended, the individual will be detained in pursuance of his sentence. The matter will then be considered by the appeals commissioners, just as sentence review commissioners do in respect of the early-release scheme under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.

Lady Hermon: I am intrigued by the Minister’s response. He will know that under clause 7 we examined the fact—and it is a fact—that an OTR who benefits from the scheme cannot be arrested or detained once they have a certificate of eligibility. Taking clause 7 together with clause 11, it must follow that once a licence is suspended, clause 7 will prevent detention or arrest of that individual. Is that the case?

David Hanson: I hope that my response answers the hon. Lady’s point; I am trying to understand it as she has raised it. My understanding is that the certificate will lapse on conviction. I repeat that when a licence is suspended, the individual will be detained in pursuance of his sentence. The matter will then be considered by the appeals commissioners, in the same way that similar matters are considered by the sentence review commissioners in respect of the 1998 early-release scheme.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful for that clarification. I still do not wish to support any particular clause in the Bill, so I will therefore vote against this one.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 16, Noes 12.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Rights of appeal: certificates of eligibility

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 16, Noes 12.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Appeals commissioners

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 141, in clause 13, page 8, line 10, at end insert—
‘(1A)Before making appointments under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult, and secure the approval of, the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 110, in clause 13, page 8, line 11, leave out from ‘State’ to ‘widespread’ in line 12 and insert
‘shall as far as practicable secure that the Commissioners are representative of and can command’.

Laurence Robertson: The amendment refers to the appointment of appeals commissioners. I have no intention of speaking to it at length, but I want to introduce the concept of involving the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission and I wonder what the Minister has to say about it.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity. His amendment would inject a role for the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission into the appointment of the appeals commissioners.
The commission’s role is to promote people to judicial posts; it is not concerned with the allocation of judges to certain courts or certain parts of the system. Furthermore, only one appeals commissioner needs to be a judge. If the amendment were accepted, the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission would have a role in appointing non-judicial commissioners.
As hon. Members are aware, a retired judge will chair the appeals commissioners and it is not clear to me that the JAC should have a role in deciding how a retired judge would be employed.
The amendments tabled by the Democratic Unionist party would ensure that the appeals commissioners were representative of the community and sought wider community support. I agree with that, and I shall try to ensure that there is widespread acceptance of the appeals commissioners across the community at large.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I rise to speak to amendment No. 110, which stands in my name and the names of my colleagues.
I welcome the Minister’s remarks, as it is important that the commissioners are representative of the community. We have had problems with various public bodies—the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission, to name just two—whereby the Government have given a commitment that they would be representative of the community. Unfortunately, the Government have not delivered on that, so I hope that the Minister will follow the commitment through in this case.
Under the provision as drafted, there is a limited duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the commissioners secure widespread acceptance. That needs to be tightened up. Our amendment would place  a much greater duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the commissioners represented the community. It is vital that, in such a sensitive area, the community can have full confidence in people who are given this important task. For the Secretary of State merely to have regard to that requirement is a weak obligation that falls far short of his duty in other areas. We ask the Committee to accept the amendment.

David Hanson: I pre-empted the discussion. As in previous discussions on community acceptability, the Government want commissioners who will command the respect, trust and support of the community at large. That does not mean that we want to be prescriptive about the representative nature of the role. We want people who are not unacceptably unrepresentative and we want to ensure that they have the support of the community. That does not necessarily mean that we will be able to achieve a balance between men and women, young and old, Protestant and Catholic. We want to ensure that, however we manage that in terms of the commission, the community at large accepts that the commission is doing an impartial job and supports it.

Mark Durkan: Does the Minister accept that, in tabling earlier amendments on having a number of certification commissioners, some Committee members were arguing for an international dimension? The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley might restrict that scope by insisting that the appeals commissioners had to be representative of the community. That would restrict the ability to appoint people from outside Northern Ireland.

David Hanson: It has taken time, but my hon. Friend is becoming my hon. Friend again at last. We are ending the Committee on a joyously co-operative note.

Peter Robinson: The Minister worries me greatly. Is he now saying that he will have an international element?
Mr. Hansonindicated dissent.

Peter Robinson: Well, the Minister said he agrees with his hon. Friend. I hope he will clarify the position.

David Hanson: I said that the Government wish to have commissioners who are representative of the community at large and who have community support at large. I am not implying anything. I am simply saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that at last he is not opposing what I have said. That is welcome at this late stage in Committee.
The Democratic Unionist party amendment, to which the hon. Member for Lagan Valley spoke, would be prescriptive. As with previous clauses, I am saying to the Committee that we will ensure that individuals who fulfil the role of appeals commissioner are representative of the community in the broader sense and will have its trust and support.

Lady Hermon: As the Minister will know, the clause is not worded in terms of any of the commissioners  being representative of the community. The wording is that they command
“as a group ... widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland.”
Given that this is such obnoxious legislation that is despised by the vast majority—I emphasise, the vast majority—of people in Northern Ireland, how in heaven’s name does the Minister expect to get three people who command widespread acceptance?

David Hanson: Again, I could bring forward an appeals commission—

Mark Durkan: On your own.

David Hanson: I am on my own again, am I? We are back to normal practice. It is like the Christmas truce in the first world war.
I am expecting to have, and I want, an appeals commission that has widespread acceptance in the community. I cannot have one Muslim, one Jew, one Protestant and one Catholic on that commission. I want a group of people who are respected, who hold the trust and confidence of the community at large, who are able to do the job because they are the best people for it, and who, in doing so, are representative of the community at large and have its confidence. I cannot be clearer than that. Such individuals would have the respect and confidence of the community and would be the best people for the job. I want that element in this legislation.

Laurence Robertson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 16, Noes 12.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 - Appeals commissioners

Motion made, and Question put, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 16, Noes 12.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 14 - Procedure of appeals commissioners

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 16, Noes 12.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Review by appeals commissioners

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 109, in clause 18, page 9, line 41, leave out ‘Special Appeal Tribunal’ and insert ‘Court of Appeal’.
New clause 14—Review by Court of Appeal—
‘(1)The exercise of functions under this Act by—
(a)the certification commissioner, or
(b)the Secretary of State,
may be questioned in legal proceedings only the Court of Appeal.
(2)The Court of Appeal is the appropriate tribunal for the purposes of section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) in relation to proceedings all or part of which call into question the exercise of any of the functions under this Act of—
(a)the certification commissioner, or
(b)the Secretary of State.’.
New clause 15—Appeal to Court of Appeal—
‘(1)A person convicted of an offence at the Crown Court may appeal to the Court of Appeal.
(2)He may appeal—
(a)against his conviction, on any ground;
(b)against sentence passed on conviction, unless the sentence is fixed by law.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (2) (b) an order under Article 5 (1) or (3) of the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001 / 2564 (N.I. 2)) (tariffs etc., in life sentence cases) is a sentence passed on conviction (but not a sentence fixed by law).
(4)No leave is required for an appeal to be brought under this section.
(5)There is no appeal from the Court of Appeal exercising jurisdiction under this section.’.
New clause 16—Review of appeals commissioners by Court of Appeal—
‘(1)The exercise of functions under this Act by the appeals commissioners may be questioned in legal proceedings only before the Court of Appeal.
(2)The Court of Appeal is the appropriate tribunal for the purposes of section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) in relation to proceedings all or part of which call into question the exercise of any of the functions under this Act of the appeals commissioners.
(3)There is no appeal from the Court of Appeal exercising jurisdiction under this section.’.

Lembit Öpik: Once again, the proposals relate to the debates we had under clauses 8 and 13 on trial by the Crown Court, rather than under a special tribunal, and appeals to the Court of Appeal. We believe that these cases should be tried in the same way as any other terrorist offences, by the criminal justice system of Northern Ireland, and the amendments reflect that.

David Hanson: I am conscious that there might be a Division in the House shortly, so I will attempt to be brief.
Clause 15 introduces arrangements for the review of decisions by the certification commissioner and the Secretary of State. That review will be undertaken by the appeals commissioners—who will, of course, be chaired by a retired judge. That will replace any judicial review of decisions, and the purpose of the arrangements is to support the creation of a distinct,  separate and self-contained system for examining these matters. That is consistent with provisions in earlier clauses that we have discussed.

Lembit Öpik: We have had this debate several times, and nothing has really changed. I note the Minister’s comments, and it would not be appropriate to press the amendment.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 16, Noes 12.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - Procedure of appeals commissioners

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in schedule 4, page 20, line 25, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall not’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 45, in schedule 4, page 20, line 27, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I shall be brief, as I know that there will be further Divisions in the House shortly. The amendment has been tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends. [Interruption.]

Lembit Öpik: I shall attempt to be brief. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that no one really knows how many people will apply and avail themselves of the scheme? As we do not know that, we do not know how many will be eligible for legal aid. Is that not one of the problems?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: As ever, I am indebted to my good friend, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who makes a fair point.
We are concerned about the possibility of the applicant being eligible for legal aid in cases being considered by the tribunal. Under the Bill as it is drafted at present, legal aid could be provided to  applicants. That could run up a bill of millions of pounds, without the potential for any of the applicants having to spend a single day in prison. That is another waste of public money. There are many other pressing needs in Northern Ireland; my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Foyle could recite many instances of how that money could be better spent. Given that we face higher rates and the introduction of water charges because the Government have said that we have to be more efficient with public money, it is plain wrong that those applicants should be eligible for legal aid. The amendments would remove the possibility of their receiving it.

David Hanson: Under the scheme, normal legal aid is not available to anybody who appears before the appeals commissioners. However, because of its special nature, the Bill provides for a special form of financial legal assistance to be available for those whose cases come before the commissioners. I cannot accept the amendment because it would prevent people whose case is being heard before the appeals commissioners from applying for and receiving that legal assistance.
It is appropriate that a person in such a position should be able to be legally represented, especially when the outcomes of the appeals commissioners’ decisions are so significant. Decisions on licences could result in a person being sent to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. In that case, it is important that proper legal process is maintained. That was the thinking when the sentence review commissioners were created. The provisions reflect the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. It is important for individuals to have that financial support, and I ask my hon. Friends to reject the amendment.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I have heard the Minister’s arguments and do not agree with them. We want to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 9, Noes 17.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.
Motion made, and Question put, That this schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

The Committee divided:  Ayes 16, Noes 11.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 - Special Appeal Tribunal

Motion made, and Question put, That this schedule be the Fifth schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 16, Noes 11.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 18 - Special Prosecutor

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 142, in clause 18, page 9, line 35, leave out ‘Advocate’ and insert ‘Attorney’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 143, in clause 18, page 10, line 2, leave out ‘Advocate’ and insert ‘Attorney’.

Laurence Robertson: I should point out for the record that we are against the Bill and against every clause in it, even though, for various reasons, it has not been necessary to vote against each one.
These amendments deal with the term “Attorney General”. Under the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 the Attorney-General for England, Wales and Northern Ireland becomes the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland but only following the devolution of justice and the appointment by the First and Deputy First Ministers of an Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.
The clause, as it is worded, appears to relate to an office that will exist only after the devolution of justice. Our amendment would make the Secretary of State consult with the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland before appointing the special prosecutor.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Laurence Robertson: During the Division, the Minister had a private word in passing with me about the clause. I am happy to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Taylor: Amendment not moved.

Lady Hermon: On a point of order, Mr. Taylor. It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Tewkesbury would explain to the Committee what the Minister said because I, too, have a genuine concern about the term “Advocate General” being written into the Bill.

David Taylor: Lady Hermon is entitled to move the amendment, if she is so minded.

Lady Hermon: In that case, I beg to move amendment No. 142, in clause 18, page 9, line 35, leave out ‘Advocate’ and insert ‘Attorney’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 143, in clause 18, page 10, line 2, leave out ‘Advocate’ and insert ‘Attorney’.

David Hanson: In passing, I discussed privately with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury the fact that his amendment, while welcome, would change references from the Advocate-General to the Attorney-General. As he said, at present and until devolution of justice, the Attorney-General for England and Wales is the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, too. However, at devolution, the responsibilities of the Attorney-General will be divided. Devolved matters  will be passed to a local Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and excepted matters will be passed to the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, who will be the same person as the Attorney-General for England and Wales.
The measure has already been provided for under the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, but it has not yet commenced because devolution of justice has not yet happened and will happen only at some point in the near future. Because of that, the reference in the Bill to the Advocate-General is qualified by paragraph 9(2) of schedule 6, which explains that, until the commencement of the provision, references to the Advocate-General should be read as references to the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. It is drafting practice to reflect existing legislative provisions, even if they were not yet commenced. The interpretation for the transitional period under paragraph 9(2) of schedule 6 will, I hope, reassure the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman that it is the accepted practice for the moment. It is in the Bill to clarify what has not yet been commenced.

Lady Hermon: As the Minister said several times to the Committee, it is not expected that the Bill will come into force until early or mid 2007. Will he confirm that he does not intend there to be the devolution of justice and policing before the beginning or middle of 2007?

David Hanson: The Government have not yet made a decision on the timing of that legislation. We will make a judgment on when that legislation should be introduced in due course. I am not yet prepared to give any suggestion of the time scale, because we are still considering the matter.

Lady Hermon: I am not convinced by the Minister. The appearance of the words “Attorney General” and “Advocate General” in the Bill—even though that is covered by paragraph 9 of schedule 6—mean that I am not convinced that it is not the Government’s intention to devolve justice and policing in the next two years, before the Bill comes into force. That is why, under the amendment, I suggest that we delete reference to the Advocate-General and keep reference to the Attorney-General. That would give a clear indication that there was no intention to devolve policing, as circumstances in the foreseeable future do not warrant such devolution.

Amendment negatived.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Subsequent inadmissibility of information provided to commissioners

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 5—Civil proceedings unaffected—
‘No evidence obtained pursuant to this Act shall be inadmissible in any civil proceedings nor shall anything in this Act limit the right of any person to pursue civil proceedings against an applicant.’.

Peter Robinson: I wish to say, as did the Conservative spokesman, that there are many clauses that we would have divided on in other circumstances. However, with 20 minutes to go and a lot of work still to be done, we will travel at a faster pace and our opposition can be regarded as having been placed on record.
The purpose of new clause 5 is to defend the right of victims to take civil proceedings against an applicant. The Bill effectively wipes out any criminal liability in relation to certain offences, but it is vital that there be no impact on the potential for civil liability. The new clause would make it clear that there was no such impact. As a result, people would continue to be liable to a civil action in respect of crimes they committed. Evidence adduced during proceedings under the scheme could be entered as part of those civil proceedings. That is a poor substitute, but it would at least allow some redress through the courts. This is a route that families in the Omagh case have taken. As the Government funded that, I am sure that they will not close off such an option to victims in this example.

David Hanson: To help the hon. Gentleman and to expedite proceedings, I assure him and other hon. Members that nothing in the Bill prevents any person from bringing civil proceedings against anyone else.

Peter Robinson: I note that the Minister puts a full stop after that remark, but we also want to ensure that the proceedings of the special tribunal—

David Hanson: Shall I continue, then, to say that the production of evidential material in civil cases will follow the normal pattern? Nothing in the Bill alters existing rules.

Peter Robinson: I am grateful for the interventions. Will the Minister intervene on me once more to say whether he is content that evidence taken during proceedings in the court, and not just evidence from the mouth of the applicant, can be brought into any civil proceedings? He will want to ensure that he does not do further violence to the victims of terrorism who seek some redress through civil proceedings.

Lembit Öpik: While the Minister puts his argument together, let me briefly say that it is essential that he give the assurance that the hon. Member for Belfast, East seeks, because at the very least we must enable evidence of the kind that he has mentioned to be useable in a civil case. It would be beyond me if the Minister was unable to give that assurance.

David Hanson: The purpose of the clause is to ensure that there is a clear distinction between the certification process and the special tribunal in respect of evidential material. The applicant will be required to provide the certification commissioner with various  kinds of information, including—we would expect—sufficient information or material to allow the person to be identified properly.
On new clause 5, I hope that the two points that I have already made to the hon. Member for Belfast, East reassure him. With regard to the further point, only admissible evidence can be used in civil cases.

Lembit Öpik: May I press the Minister on that? It is very important that we have clarity on whether some evidence will not now be admissible in a civil case. I understand that that is a difficult question, as a bit of research needs to be done, but I do not think we can go any further in determining what to do next unless we have an answer to it.

David Hanson: The clause is designed to prevent material from being used for other purposes in connection with such proceedings, unless the defendant wants to use it in that way. I suspect there will be disagreement in Committee on that.
Let me refer again to the points made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. The purpose of new clause 5 is to ensure that evidence obtained under the legislation is admissible in civil proceedings and that civil proceedings are not hampered in any way. I assure Members that nothing in the Bill prevents any person from bringing civil proceedings against anybody else. The production of evidential material in civil cases will follow normal patterns, and nothing in the Bill alters those existing rules.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided:  Ayes 16, Noes 12.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Suspension and revival of section 3

Sammy Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in clause 22, page 12, line 29, leave out from ‘make’ to end of line 30 and insert
‘an order suspending the operation of section 3.’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 248, in clause 22, page 12, leave out line 40.
Amendment No. 145, in clause 23, page 13, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 146, in clause 23, page 13, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
New clause 11—Expiry—
‘This Act shall cease to have any effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which it is brought into force.’.
New clause 12—Suspension of section 3—
‘The Secretary of State shall make an order suspending the operation of section 3 six months after the Act comes into force.’.

Sammy Wilson: Under the Bill as drafted, the scheme can be suspended but later revived. Our amendment would do away with the ability to revive it. As has been discussed, the scheme is extraordinary in nature. It should be given only one chance. There should be no ability to suspend and revive it, time and again.
I suppose the scheme could be suspended for a number of reasons. It might well be that the security situation does not allow it to be carried forward. If there was a return to violence, there might be a desire to suspend it. It would be unacceptable for terrorists to return to violence and for the scheme to be suspended, but for them then to get a second opportunity when they decided to complete their violence or to finish with it.
Another circumstance in which the scheme might be suspended is if the Minister decided that all who were likely to come forward had done so, only for new people to come forward subsequently. The scheme might then be revived to enable them to benefit from it. That would do away with the Minister’s assurance to the Committee that this is not to be a scheme that goes on and on. There is meant to be a time limit to it. Members in all parts of the Committee have said that they want a time limit, but the ability to suspend and revive gives the opportunity for an open-ended scheme.
In one debate, the hon. Member for North Down asked whether we will have this expensive structure in place for 15 years. After a year, the Minister might decide that all the people who will come forward have done so and that the Government do not want the expense, so the scheme will be suspended. A year later, if more people are found or say that they want to benefit from the scheme, it might be revived. That would be nonsensical and it would go against all the indications that have been given that this should be a time-limited scheme.
There is another reason why there might be a desire to suspend the scheme and then revive it. Some people who would have been guilty of terrorist offences before 1998 cannot benefit from the scheme because their organisation is scheduled. At some stage, it might be decided that the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA will no longer be scheduled. That being the case, the scheme might be suspended and then revived to incorporate those people who currently cannot benefit from it.
Those are the only circumstances I can see in which the scheme might be suspended and then revived. Perhaps the Minister can suggest others. Such a provision allows the terrorist to dictate the agenda for the special tribunals and so on. It also makes a mockery of the idea of closure and of the point that there must be an incentive for people to come forward, which the Minister has made time and again. There will be no incentive. When people decide that they want to come forward, their political representatives can put the pressure on to get the scheme revived.
Given that this is an extraordinary arrangement, which we do not want to go on indefinitely, if there is to be a suspension, it should be final. The scheme should be concluded and there should be no chance of resurrecting it.

Lembit Öpik: New clause 11 would ensure that the Bill lapsed after five years. With the benefit of perspective, I now think that we might want to make that period shorter. The one thing I am absolutely certain about is that there has to be an outer limit to this legislation, otherwise those whom we seek to encourage to apply for the provision will have no time incentive to do so. The new clause would also go some way towards mitigating the indefinite get-out-of-jail-free-card problem, which we have already debated on a number of occasions.

Mark Durkan: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 145 and 146. I agree with what other hon. Members have said about clauses 22 and 23. We are trying to prevent the bizarre situation provided for by the Bill. It is as if the arrangements can come and go, like some macabre Brigadoon, based on whatever deeds are done at the time. If the Government were honest, they would say that the Secretary of State would exercise the powers under clause 23 only if Sinn Fein had agreed that no useful purpose was being served.
The Government have told us that they are bound hand and foot to Sinn Fein in pursuing this Bill and taking it through. The fate of anything that happens in future and any exercise of the Secretary of State’s powers are entirely contingent on the approval and acceptance of Sinn Fein—and nobody else.

David Hanson: I shall try to be quick. The purpose of clause 22 is to give the Secretary of State the facility to shut down the whole scheme in the event of an emergency such as the circumstances that the hon. Member for East Antrim mentioned—the collapse of the political peace process and the return to violence. If that occurred and if the Secretary of State undertook  suspension under clause 22, such an order would end the granting of certificates and the effectiveness of any certificates already granted. Certificate holders could be arrested and tried in normal courts and any trials going on would not result in the granting of a licence. The whole scheme would be suspended and collapsed.

Ben Wallace: The Minister mentioned people who would already have been granted a certificate. Could those who had been granted a certificate and been through a special tribunal trial be brought back and tried in a court system, or would their slate have been wiped clean once they had been through the special tribunal trial?

David Hanson: As I just said, certificate holders could be arrested and tried in the normal courts, and the effectiveness of any certificates already granted would end. Any ongoing trials would not result in the granting of a licence.
The hon. Member for East Antrim is trying to ensure that we do not reverse the shutdown procedure. The lead amendment addresses the concern that an emergency shutdown could be reversed. Emergencies can, of course, end and it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to have such a power, which he could institute if he felt circumstances had changed. I cannot pre-empt what future Secretaries of State will do, but they should have the power to reflect on that issue while the legislation is passed.
The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire would place a five-year limit on the scheme. I have already indicated that under various schedules the scheme has a two-year minimum. Under clause 23, the
“Secretary of State may by order repeal any provision of the Act”
at no time
“earlier than two years after its commencement”.
The new clause would put on a five-year time limit, but the Secretary of State might well be able to close the scheme down earlier. I reject the amendment: if political circumstances moved on, the Secretary of State might require an earlier date.
Amendments Nos. 145 and 146, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle, would remove the Secretary of State’s power to amend the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. We have included that power to give the Government the tools to ensure a smooth progression from the scheme to any succeeding scenario. That is a valuable element of the scheme. I commend the proposals as they stand.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister has confirmed my worst fears; Sinn Fein-IRA will have the opportunity to have as many bites as possible at this bitter cherry. I should like to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 10, Noes 16.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 16, Noes 12.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Commencement

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in clause 24, page 13, line 18, at end add—
‘(2)An order under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 148, in clause 24, page 13, line 18, at end add—
‘(2)The Secretary of State must make an order under this section no earlier than 24 months after the commencement of—
(a)a restoration order made under section 3 (1) of the Northern Ireland Act 2000; or
(b)the lapse of section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000.’.
No. 149, in clause 25, page 13, line 20, at end insert,
‘and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.
No. 150, in clause 25, page 13, line 27, leave out subsection (4).
No. 151, in clause 25, page 13, line 29, leave out subsection (5).
No. 152, in clause 25, page 13, line 31, leave out subsection (6).
No. 153, in clause 25, page 13, line 41, leave out subsection (7).

Laurence Robertson: The amendment would ensure the Bill is not implemented without a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament and that no such action should be taken until the Assembly has been up and running for two years.

David Hanson: I do not believe that the amendment should stand, because before it can become an Act, the Bill will pass through both Houses of Parliament. There is the potential under the Bill for a range of measures to be brought forward and an affirmative resolution is unnecessary. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the amendment.

Laurence Robertson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

David Taylor: It being 4 o’clock—

Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Taylor. Do you have the powers of a premiership referee? We lost some time at the beginning of our proceedings, and there are only three votes to be taken.

David Taylor: I am afraid that those powers lie with the Whips. I must put the remaining Questions forthwith.

It being Four o’ clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 83D and the Order of the Committee [6 December], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

New Clause 2 - Certificates for offences committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland

‘(1)Where an application is made to the certification commissioner for a certificate of eligibility, the commissioner must issue a certificate if—
(a)the applicant is accused of an offence committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland, and
(b)it appears to the commissioner, on the information available to him, that the applicant meets the conditions set out in section 3 above.
(2)The commissioner may preserve the anonymity of any person who makes an application under this section, if he sees fit.’. —[Mr. Peter Robinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second Time:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 8, Noes 18.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3 - Victims’ rights and entitlements—eligibility certificates

‘In determining whether an applicant for an eligibility certificate meets the conditions set out in section 3 above, the commissioner shall give an opportunity for a victim, or the family of a victim, to make representations to him.’. —[Mr. Peter Robinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second Time:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 11, Noes 16.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4 - VICTIMS’ RIGHTS AND ENTITLEMENTS—SPECIAL TRIBUNALS

‘(1)Before the Special Tribunal established under section 8 sentences an applicant who pleads guilty or is found guilty of an offence, it shall give an opportunity for a victim, or the family of a victim, to make representations to it.
(2)In passing sentence, the Special Tribunal shall take into account any representations made to it under subsection (1).’. —[Mr. Peter Robinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second Time:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 11, Noes 16.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

David Hanson: On a point of order, Mr. Taylor. On behalf of the entire Committee—I hope—I express my gratitude to you and your co-Chairman, Sir Nicholas, for the way in which you have chaired the Committee.
I also pass on our grateful thanks to the Clerk, Mr. Sandall, and his team for the efficient way in which they have managed the amendments. I also thank Hansard, which has done, as ever, a fine job, and also the doorkeepers and the police, who have kept order.
I particularly thank all hon. Members for their co-operation in Committee. I know that strong passions have been generated. I simply say to Opposition Members that they have fulfilled their duty to challenge the Government, and they have done so in an exemplary manner. I hope that those hon. Members who have now had their first experience of a Committee enjoyed it. I also thank my officials and my hon. Friends for their support and their contributions.
Although the Bill leaves Committee as it entered it, I hope that our debates have shown that there are issues on which the Government will reflect. I look forward, after a restful Christmas break, to returning in the new year to deal with those matters on Report and Third Reading.

Laurence Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Taylor. I echo the Minister’s thanks, particular to you and Sir Nicholas for your chairmanship.
I thank the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with the Bill. I think that he took every intervention that was asked of him. I look forward to him returning on Report with one or two of Opposition Members’ suggested improvements.

Lembit Öpik: Further to that point of order, Mr. Taylor. I associate myself and the Liberal Democrats with the Minister’s comments. [Interruption.] No doubt those are well wishers telephoning as we speak. I also echo the comments of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. It is disappointing that not a single amendment has been made to the Bill, but the Minister has done a good job in impossible circumstances. Although we may hate the sin, we still love the sinner.

Lady Hermon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Taylor. I despise and have utter contempt for this legislation and I am ashamed of my own Government for taking it forward. Nevertheless, I want to put on the record my deep appreciation of your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor, and of that of Sir Nicholas, especially during the late hours of Tuesday, for which we have already expressed our appreciation. I thank the Clerks, his officials and Hansard, and to everyone else who has contributed by supplying us with water, little notes and encouragement.
As I have said, I despise Bill, but I appreciate the efforts that Opposition Members and the Social Democratic and Labour party Members have made to improve the Bill. I am only sorry that the Minister did not stretch himself more to improve the Bill by accepting amendments. He will come back to us on Report, and I hope that over the Christmas break he will reflect and be generous in responding to victims’ concerns and the concerns of all hon. Members who are deeply concerned by the legislation, even at the end of the Committee stage.

Peter Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Taylor. I would not like the occasion to pass without expressing to you and Sir Nicholas my appreciation and that of my colleagues for the way in which you have conducted the proceedings. We warmly  appreciate how you have been able to keep us cool when tempers could easily have become considerably heated. I join other members of the Committee who have expressed their appreciation to the officials and police and so on. We thought at one stage that we might have an all-night sitting. We ended up with a late-night sitting, but still managed to complete our work.
Although the Minister has been pleasant, mild and mannerly throughout our whole proceedings, not even his excellent disposition could make anyone from Northern Ireland—save the terrorists—swallow this legislation. He really will have to do better when the Bill is discussed on Report. I hope that he will take the opportunity to do so.

Mark Durkan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Taylor. I join other hon. Members in extending thanks to you and Sir Nicholas for helping us throughout our proceedings. I thank everyone else who has supported the Committee in its task, such as the Clerk, his staff, and others.
I dissociate myself from the Minister’s compliments to his hon. Friends for providing support. I am glad that the Minister counted me as an hon. Friend on a couple of occasions during our debates, but I want to make clear my position on the Bill. Like others, I find it disgraceful and disgusting. I am appalled that it is the first Bill in which I have been involved in a Committee stage in this Parliament. We shall debate it further at other stages.
Like other hon. Members, I acknowledge the Minister’s forbearance. Each sitting of the Committee was, in effect, a punishment meeting for him—and deservedly so, given the nature of the Bill—but I accept the good grace with which he has conducted his contributions.

David Taylor: I wish all parliamentary colleagues, staff and visitors a relaxing intervention-free Christmas and a legislatively productive new year. That concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill.

Bill to be reported, pursuant to the Order of the House [23 November].
Committee rose at thirteen minutes past Four o’clock.